91ÊÓƵ

We may be forgiven for not noticing a report issued in the dog days of August from Metro Chief Operating Officer Michael Jordan recommending the addition of 2,658 acres to the Portland metropolitan urban growth boundary. This compares to the approximate 18,700 acres added in 2002 and the approximate 2,300 acres added in 2004-05. However, the recommended changes this year are significant and controversial.

Metro is responsible for the regional UGB and to ensure it contains an adequate land supply. If Metro determines more land is needed, it generally must choose first those lands within its “urban reserves,” those lands that would be added before any others, from an inventory previously established by Metro. However, the decision on the reserves, made by Metro in June and by the three metro-area counties in 2009, has been challenged and is scheduled to be reviewed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in October. It is also likely that any LCDC decision will be appealed further. The impacts of a successful appeal are unknown at this point.

Five of the areas identified in Metro’s recommendations are for residential expansion to accommodate 32,050 new dwelling units – near Cornelius, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Wilsonville and Oregon City (the latter represented by this firm), while Hillsboro also gets a recommendation for an industrial expansion of 310 acres. The additions are proposed to meet Metro’s obligations to review its population and employment growth requirements every five years for a 20-year planning horizon. Metro approved these numerical projections last December, and the August recommendations flow from them. Metro’s council must decide both whether the UGB should be expanded and, if so, where.

These decisions have both political and legal aspects. There is a legal aspect because any Metro decision is likely to be challenged. The political aspect involves the intersection of competing methodological and policy issues, including:

1. The accuracy of the population and employment projections. Metro staff recommended the middle third of the possible population projections and a fairly low industrial land needs projection. The latter may satisfy neither those holding large tracts of land on the edge of the boundary, who find both inadequate, nor those who feel the recent economic downturn does not justify addition of lands. Others may feel that Metro’s efforts are inadequate to address what seems like a very long and slow road to recovery.
2. The role of infill and UGB efficiency. Those who feel the region should grow “up,” rather than “out” will chafe at much expansion of the UGB and reject Metro’s claim of inadequacy for the report’s existing measures for more efficient use of urban lands.
3. The role of affordable housing. For most of the region, including in Metro’s reports, affordable housing as it relates to transportation costs as a portion of living expenses, is given lip service, but no real encouragement. Many of the proposed UGB expansion areas are not anywhere near existing or planned transit. Ultimately, there is little money and almost no political will to do anything else.
4. Centers and corridors. Metro has built its planning reputation on reinforcing outward urban expansion from recognized centers. It is hard to see how the addition of lands at the periphery of the UGB is consistent with this strategy.
5. The cost of infrastructure. This is the elephant in the room raised at the center of the Jordan report. Do cities want growth and can they afford it? The scandal of the rejection of growth allocated to Damascus or the incredible infrastructure costs emerging in North Bethany permeates future discussions about growth in the metropolitan area.

Much remains to be said and done regarding the future of the metro area, but notwithstanding all of the platitudes regarding encouragement of economic development and provision of housing options, watch these topics. Metro’s approach to regional growth appears to be more of the same.

Edward Sullivan has specialized in land-use law for more than 40 years and is an owner in the Portland office of Garvey Schubert Barer. Contact him at 503-228-3939 or at [email protected].

Carrie Richter specializes in land-use and municipal law and is an owner in the Portland office of Garvey Schubert Barer. She is also chair-elect of the American Planning Association’s Planning and Law Division. Contact her at 503-228-3939 or at [email protected].